Globale Erwärmung durch Treibhauseffekt - nur ein Mythos der Linken? (Seite 4253)

[mouse_potato]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 38.434.802 von rv_2011 am 22.11.09 23:34:16

Genau so ist es rv!

[rv_2011]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 38.434.777 von derbewunderer am 22.11.09 23:22:27

Privat äußern sich Wissenschaftler (und nicht nur Wissenschaftler) anders als öffentlich. Das ist nicht nur bei Klimaforschern so.

Mit einer Verschwörung hat das nichts zu tun.

Und depodoc soll mal ne kalte Dusche nehmen - der halusziniert ja schon "Mann im Gefängnis".

[rv_2011]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 38.434.770 von mouse_potato am 22.11.09 23:20:03

Ist es nicht eher so:

[urlWeil ihnen die Argumente ausgehen, müssen Industrielobbyisten und ihre Fangemeinde private Daten klauen, um die große "Verschwörung" der Klimawissenschaftler aufzudecken]http://www.heise.de/tp/blogs/2/146602[/url]

[depodoc]

#15328 von derbewunderer

Leider wurde mein #15295 gelöscht,
da bin ich der Zukunft wohl ein wenig vorausgeeilt.

Von Storch wird nicht der einzige bleiben, der Mann et.al nicht mehr im peer review haben will.
Die Rolle als "Türöffner" wird sich für Michael Mann hoffentlich ins Gegenteil verkehren.
"Upside down" ganz real, wenn Mann im Gefängnis ist.
Diese Möglichkeit besteht, wenn Mann und auch Hansen sich evtl. wegen Falschaussage vor dem US Kongress verantworten muss.

..2.Die Bekämpfung des „fictitious climate enemy“ durch die US kann nur im Rahmen der für die US förderlichen Geschäfte, die sich „daraus“ ergeben, befürwortet werden. Umgehung hierfür zu schaffender gesetzlicher Sicherungen sind durch den anwendbaren „federal racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act“, auch als RICO bekannt, scharf und streng zu beobachten und zu ahnden."
Das bedeutet, dass die Herren Mann und Hansen et al. möglicherweise vor dem US Kongress zu evtl. früheren eidesstattlichen Falschaussagen vor den US Senatoren zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden. Meine Erinnerungen als ehemaliger Kommissar des "US Energy Savings Programme" zur Geburt des IPCC sind z.T. fixiert in dem Buch "Die Lüge der klimakatastrophe - Der Auftrag des Weltklimarates", das Sie wahrscheinlich alle kennen.
Was wird Merkel sagen, was ihre Zuträger? Wird sie das tun, was ihr Lehrherr ihr beibrachte? Aussitzen?
Bon amusement am Wochenende wünscht
H. Bachmnn
http://ef-magazin.de/2009/11/21/1665-climategate-der-klima-l…

( gefettet von mir )

ps. falls es einige nicht wissen sollten: wenn man im Gefängnis ist, gilt man im Allgemeinen als "Kriminell".

[jetlagged999]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 38.434.770 von mouse_potato am 22.11.09 23:20:03

From: mann
To: p.jones
Subject: Re: Something far more interesting
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:03:13 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: t.osborn

Dear Phil,

Of course I’ll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority. It sounds like it would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal of our present funding), etc. by I don’t see a problem with that in the least.

Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to make mine available, though can’t promise its the most user friendly thing in the world.

In short, I like the idea. INclude me in, and let me know what you need from me (cv, etc.)

cheers,

mike

[mouse_potato]

Hacked Emails Show Climate Science Ridden with Rancor

A partial review of the emails shows that in many cases, climate scientists revealed that their own research wasn't always conclusive. In others, they discussed ways to paper over differences among themselves in order to present a "unified" view on climate change. On at least one occasion, climate scientists were asked to "beef up" conclusions about climate change and extreme weather events because environmental officials in one country were planning a "big public splash."

...

In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.

...

One email from 1999, titled "CENSORED!!!!!" showed one U.S.-based scientist uncomfortable with such tactics. "As for thinking that it is 'Better that nothing appear, than something unacceptable to us' … as though we are the gatekeepers of all that is acceptable in the world of paleoclimatology seems amazingly arrogant. Science moves forward whether we agree with individual articles or not," the email said.

More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.

Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

[derbewunderer]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 38.434.762 von rv_2011 am 22.11.09 23:13:19

Da ich nicht schlafen kann, ja, teilweise. Lies dir das v. Storch Statement zum Hack durch, er taucht in den e-mails auf. Bei 15330 stimme ich dir zu, nur die Art und Weise, wie hier vorgegangen wurde, nunja, Newton war auch ein Arschloch.

[mouse_potato]

ja genau rv! geh lieber auch schlafen!

[rv_2011]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 38.434.608 von mouse_potato am 22.11.09 21:53:34

Also keine Datenmanipulation?

Sondern eine Verwendung der real gemessenen Temperaturen an Stelle der Prory-Daten?

Das beweist:
Die Thermometer messen fasch: In Wirklichkeit sind die Temperaturen in den letzten Jahrzehnten gefallen!

AGW beruht also auf einer Verschwörung der Klimaforscher.

[jetlagged999]

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 38.434.608 von mouse_potato am 22.11.09 21:53:34

......In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I’ll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number.

Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)

Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)

Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!

Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)

Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI (Freedom of Information Act) request.(1212063122)

Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)

Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)

Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)

Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)

Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)

Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)

Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)

Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)

Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)

Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)

Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)

Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)

Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)

Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)

Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)

Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)

Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)

Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)

Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)

Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)

Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)

Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)

Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)

Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)

Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)

Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)

Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)

Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)

Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)

Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)

Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)

Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)

Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)

Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)

Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)

Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)

Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)

David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)

Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)

Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)

Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/bishop-hills-compendiu…